5 ms·

You are just wrong. You cannot find any reliable scholar who says "bishops are to be be married with kids." Like I said, it would mean that Paul was not legiti

You are just wrong. You cannot find any reliable scholar who says "bishops are to be be married with kids." Like I said, it would mean that Paul was not legitimate which is just nonsense. Nobody believes that. You should read this: https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-st-paul-say-bishops-must-be-married https://www.catholic.com/qa/did-st-paul-say-bishops-must-be-...

hajile 1y ago
That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree? "You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance. If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.
- ImJamal 1y ago
  > That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree? You are not making a good argument. If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that. > "You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance. Fine, ignore the scholars. Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position. If it was that clear you should be able to find somebody who agrees with you. You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation. This is why there are thousands of different churches. Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture. You are trying to prove Christians, or maybe just Catholics, are idiots or whatever you are trying to do. If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility. > If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position. Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture. The Catholic Church believes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 > So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter There is clearly things outside of scripture they believe. Anybody who can follow basic logic can come to the Catholic position from the Bible as I have already mentioned. Premise 1: The apostles are bishops. Premise 2: Paul was an apostle. Premise 3: Paul was not married and had no children. Therefore bishops are not required to be married and have children.
  - hajile 1y ago
    > If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that. Can you point to a bishop appointed by Jesus' 12 disciples who was not married with children? If not, then you are making a baseless assertion. > Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position. Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children. Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible. > You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation. You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems. The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation. It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms. > Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture. If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole? > If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility. Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts. You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable. > Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture. Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here. If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said. > Premise 1: The apostles are bishops. What evidence do you have for this? Apostle means "messenger" or "sent forth". This is far different than Bishop which means "overseer". Paul was certainly familiar with both terms (calling himself a "servant of God, called to be a apostle (messenger)"). Ephesians 4:11 (KJV) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Paul sees a clear distinction between the messengers and those who would oversee the churches. This is why he doesn't see his writings as hypocritical and why the other two premises simply do not matter to the conclusion.

hajile 1y ago

That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree? "You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance. If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position.

ImJamal 1y ago
> That article is pure sophistry. No actual reasoning why. Just the assertion that "we don't think it makes sense, so it doesn't matter". That's not how holy books are supposed to work. If they really are inspired by God, who are they to disagree? You are not making a good argument. If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that. > "You can't find any reliable scholar" is an appeal to authority fallacy. EVERYONE regardless of Christian denomination agrees that the text says what it says very clearly (can you point to even one controversy about 1 Tim 3:1-7 ?). The idea that they reject what the book clearly states while also claiming the book to be divinely inspired is extreme cognitive dissonance. Fine, ignore the scholars. Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position. If it was that clear you should be able to find somebody who agrees with you. You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation. This is why there are thousands of different churches. Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture. You are trying to prove Christians, or maybe just Catholics, are idiots or whatever you are trying to do. If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility. > If you are a Christian, prove your position from the Bible alone. In this case, that clearly isn't possible. You should look at what other claims from many churches (including the Catholic Church) that also aren't supported by the Bible without resorting to sophistries while obviously ignoring the parts that are inconvenient to your position. Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture. The Catholic Church believes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 > So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter There is clearly things outside of scripture they believe. Anybody who can follow basic logic can come to the Catholic position from the Bible as I have already mentioned. Premise 1: The apostles are bishops. Premise 2: Paul was an apostle. Premise 3: Paul was not married and had no children. Therefore bishops are not required to be married and have children.
- hajile 1y ago
  > If the rule required bishops to be married then a large chunk of the bishops consecrated by the apostles were not legitimate. Nobody thinks that. Can you point to a bishop appointed by Jesus' 12 disciples who was not married with children? If not, then you are making a baseless assertion. > Point to anybody in the first 1500 years of the Church that takes your position. Paul does in 1 Tim 3. We also have reformers like Martin Luther who after discovering the Bible for himself rejected his vows of celibacy, got married, and had several children. Luther would not have rejected his vows before God had they not conflicted with what he read in the Bible. > You are being prideful and assuming that you are reading it correctly despite nobody agreeing with your interpretation. You are jumping straight into the ad-hominems. The Bible says what it says and everyone agrees that there is no mistake or mistranslation. It's like when modern Mormons reject polygamy when it is espoused as critically important by Joseph Smith. You can't take a very clear and intentional meaning of what you believe to be inspired and ignore it just because you don't like what it says or it goes against current tradition and norms. > Everybody just reads whatever they want into scripture. If you can just make up whatever you want, then the whole thing would certainly be a farce. Are you simply arguing against Christianity and the Bible as a whole? > If you actually want to convince somebody maybe you should have some charity and humility. Another ad-hominem. I addressed the facts. You took issue with the clear writings in the Bible and went on a crusade to prove the unprovable. > Maybe you should learn basic Christan beleifs. No Christian, including those who believe in Sola Scriptura, believes everything can be found in scripture. Yet another ad-homenem. Setting that aside, you are making a non-sequitur here. If I fully agree that not everything is in the Bible, that has zero bearing on what IS in the Bible. If we were discussing the nature of the divinity of the Christ, your point may have merit (though those arguing on all sides believe they can scratch together an argument), but we are talking about a very clear "Bishops should be married to one woman with well-mannered kids". There is no room for debate and you won't actually find much debate -- just outright ignoring what was said. > Premise 1: The apostles are bishops. What evidence do you have for this? Apostle means "messenger" or "sent forth". This is far different than Bishop which means "overseer". Paul was certainly familiar with both terms (calling himself a "servant of God, called to be a apostle (messenger)"). Ephesians 4:11 (KJV) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Paul sees a clear distinction between the messengers and those who would oversee the churches. This is why he doesn't see his writings as hypocritical and why the other two premises simply do not matter to the conclusion.